Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I DRAFT <br />I ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - Jl TL Y 8. 1996 7 <br />~ 11. The East-West private street between Parcels A-I and B should not be dedicated as a <br />I public street (collector); and <br /> 12. Parcel B shall be analyzed by itself in relationship to the land development parameters <br />I and that those parameters shall not be flexed from what the City Code allows. <br /> The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary minor subdivision, subject <br />I to the following conditions: <br /> 1. Provision of the necessary drainage and utility easements, prior to Planning Commission <br />. consideration of the final minor subdivision; <br /> 2. Provision of the necessary vehicular cross access easements, prior to Planning <br />I Commission consideration of the final minor subdivision; and <br /> 3. Dedication and/or payment of the appropriate park dedication for Parcels A-2 and B, as <br />. determined by City Council. <br />.. Mr. Ringwald noted that the City Code requires a 4/5 vote of the Council to approve a PUD <br /> master plan. <br />I Mayor Probst asked if the applicant accepts the proposed conditions. Walt Seiler, representing <br /> CDS, stated they agree with all conditions except one, the 25 to 50 foot setback requirement into <br /> the wooded area (Area #1). <br />I Mayor Probst questioned the zero lot line building setback between Parcels A-I and C and stated <br /> his concern that if these parcels were significantly redeveloped, the City would not want to <br />I guarantee the zero lot line option. Mr. Ringwald advised the lot line being questioned exists as <br /> shown. He explained that if the building on Parcels A-I and C were destroyed and rebuilt, it <br />I would probably be assumed that the current lot line conditions would again be acceptable, ifthe <br /> buildings were rebuilt as they currently exist. Mayor Probst stated if this were to happen, he <br /> would support requiring the new development to provide building setback adjacent to the <br />I common lot line. Mr. Ringwald advised this aspect was not discussed with the applicant but if <br /> the building were to be redeveloped, then he believes the owner would request a modification to <br /> the PUD. <br />I Mayor Probst requested assurances that the action being considered tonight would not prevent <br /> that from happening should the entire site be redeveloped. Mr. Ringwald suggested that if the <br />I council wishes assurances, then Condition 13 should be added to indicate this intention. <br />f' <br />I <br />